A Study Bible to End All Study Bibles

This may have been out for a while, but I recently ran across it: "The New Defender's Study Bible: Understanding the Critical Issues of Faith from a Literal Creationist Viewpoint".

My initial reaction was laughter at such absurdity. After all, here is someone going to the trouble of writing an entire study Bible for the express purpose of promoting a 21st century conception of Creationism. However, as I thought about it, I quickly became quite disturbed. Consider the tagline that is included on the advertisements for this Study Bible:

Now the most complete and uncompromising study Bible defending the scientific accuracy of Scripture has been enlarged from 1,620 pages to 2,202 pages. With larger, easier to read type and 50% more commentary, this is the finest study Bible available.

I want to make sure anybody didn't miss that. First, this is "the finest study Bible available." Forget a study Bible that would train one in the historic orthodoxy of the Church; don't bother with a study Bible that would instruct one in the call to ethical formation. No, finally the finest study Bible available has arisen from the masses of others, and deals with the most important issue possible: Creationism.

Ridiculous.

But what is even worse is that it supposes itself to be "the most complete and uncompromising study Bible defending the scientific accuracy of Scripture" ! Now those who read this blog on a regular basis are familiar with my anatagonism for lines of thinking which inappropriately merge the supposedly necessary meaning of Scripture with particular philosophical methodologies. But this so-called "Study Bible" has gone to the nth degree in this regard. By fusing creationism with the Study Bible, the authors are making a not-so-subtle claim that their particular assumptions about creationism are not only biblical, but moreover that this form of belief is essential to right Christian belief and salvation.

Inevitably, however, this will backfire. When the currently faddish conception of creationism that is herein fused to the study of Scripture is no longer maintainable by even its more vociferous adherents as attaining "scientific merit," all those who have based their study of Scripture (and formation of doctrine, belief and ethics) upon this "resource" will inherit the damage of this incredibly irresponsible publication. This all goes to show that even the most self-styled defenders of "absolute Biblical authority" can have other agendas and can easily confuse the "defense" of Scripture with the propogation of their own dearly held philosophical presuppositions.

On the bright side, it comes in the King James Version (red bounded leather, no less!), so at least they got something right (DOH!).

God’s salvation is commensurate with creation; that is, God’s salvation has been operative in space/time for the duration of the creation. In this way, the decision of salvation was not something that happened at a point in time, but is rather the modus operandi of God’s creative decisions to begin with. That God creates is the revelation of God’s desire to exist in relationship to that which God has created.

I have never come across this study Bible and perhaps it is ridiculous. However, Creationism is biblical, and is essential to right Christian belief and salvation. I too am intrested in when God implemented his plan of salvation? If it was when humans were still primates, should we be evangelizing monkeys also? Evangelicals certainly have failed in doing so. Maybe we need to begin a new ministry called Missions to Monkeys.

I’m not really “anything.” While I suggest that biological evolution is a meaningful framework through which to process and understand the overwhelming preponderance of phenomenological evidence of the processes and mechanisms of the universe, I am also not naive enough to believe that the current understandings of evolutionary biology will be intact (at least not in their present forms) in the future.

What I’m saying is, about how far up the evolutionary tree do you reckon God began saving hominids?

As I said before, I understand God’s salvation to be present throughout the fabric of space-time, intersecting and enfolding all times and places in the cosmos to the unlimited beneficence and reconciling love of God. Therefore, I would not really point to a specific place at which the salvation of God “started”–as I mentioned above, for God to create is for God’s salvation to be present, for the act of creation indicates a desire on God’s behalf to exist in relationship with that which God creates.

Could “Lucy” have been a Christian?

Lucy does not have mental faculties to affirm the tenants of Christian belief that would make her a Christian (explain the Trinity and hypostatic union to a chimpanzee). Nonetheless, does this mean that Lucy is outside of God’s salvation? Hardly.

I have never come across this study Bible and perhaps it is ridiculous.

Yes.

However, Creationism is biblical, and is essential to right Christian belief and salvation.

Essential? Really? Historical theology would not agree with you, and there have been no ecumenical councils or creeds to substantiate your claim. Upon what basis could you possibly prove this thesis, other than upon the authority of your own philosophical prejudices?

Moreover, I would ask, which version of “creationism?” Would you affirm a creationism like Hugh Ross’ that allows for billions of years of stellar evolution to account for the obviously ancient age of the universe? Or how about the less theological Intelligent Design? If you are going to make this a matter of salvific importance, it must be very clearly defined. I do not think you will find a consensus on this one, even among those who are sympathetic to your assumptions.

I too am intrested in when God implemented his plan of salvation?

As I have mentioned above, for God to create indicates that God desires to exist in relationship with that which God creates. Therefore, there is a very meaningful sense in which for God to create IS for God to save.

Lucy lacked the capacity to understand, really? Did she leave behind some writings or something? How can we know for sure that Lucy did not possess the capacity to understand the othrodox tenets of the faith? Perhaps Adam and Eve were really just two tribes of Australopithecines turned evil by eating rotten bananas?

If it was when humans were still primates, should we be evangelizing monkeys also? Evangelicals certainly have failed in doing so. Maybe we need to begin a new ministry called Missions to Monkeys.

God’s plan of salvation, as has already been mentioned, is not limited to a beginning and end point in the space time continuum, but is part and parcel of God’s whole creative action. The God who creates the world is the God who sustains the world because God loves that which God has made- thus, all of creation, and not just humanity, is included in redemption. Christ did more than just save humanity from sin and the susbsequent plunge into non-being; the whole universe is included in the recapitulation.

Even those of humanity who reject God are ultimately wrapped up in the redemption of the universe, for even they share in the resurrection. Thus, God’s creative act and God’s sustaining power and God’s love for what God has made are vindicated over sin- sin, no matter how destructive its effects, cannot ultimately undo what God has done.

Lucy lacked the capacity to understand, really? Did she leave behind some writings or something? How can we know for sure that Lucy did not possess the capacity to understand the othrodox tenets of the faith? Perhaps Adam and Eve were really just two tribes of Australopithecines turned evil by eating rotten bananas?

You are right. I don’t know Lucy’s capacity for comprehension. But that does not materially change my position, for reconciliation with God is not based on one’s ability to comprehend the infinity and eternality of the Godhead.

Exist, you and Deviant Monk seem to make some authoritative statements. As the statement that redemption is not just for humanity. But my question is, if scripture is clear that we are to repent and believe to be saved, then would that not leave out all other forms of life? I have not yet heard the conversion story of a fish. Where do you guys get your authoritative statements. You seem to more of the postmodern mindset, all philosophies are equally true, so where do you get the authority to make the bold statements that you do?

Historical theology would not agree with you, and there have been no ecumenical councils or creeds to substantiate your claim. Upon what basis could you possibly prove this thesis, other than upon the authority of your own philosophical prejudices?

Really, what historical theology are you talking about? Perhaps there have been no ecuminical councils to meet on this one, because it was not needed. You never had anybody trying to teach evolution and to bride it with Christianity. The evolution theory was formulated to oppose Christianity. Perhaps Genesis 1 would clear things up for you. God created (two words in Hebrew) meaning self-create. Not evolve. He created it, instantaneously. It is too clear in scripture to believe otherwise under the authority of Scripture.

Upon what basis to I prove this…the authority of Scripture my friend, my prejudices are meaningless.

Seriously, did God create mankind in his image, or did we just sort of evolve into his image. If God is simply guiding the evolutionary process, then how can we truly be sure things will come out the way he intends. If he is working out the evolutionary process to accomplish his desired end, is there any free will? Anyway…just a thought.

Exist, you and Deviant Monk seem to make some authoritative statements. As the statement that redemption is not just for humanity. But my question is, if scripture is clear that we are to repent and believe to be saved, then would that not leave out all other forms of life? I have not yet heard the conversion story of a fish.

The call to repentance for humans is necessary because it is humans, not fish, who live at enmity with God. In this sense, a fish does not need to be “converted” from a live of rebellion against God, to one of reconciliation.

Nonetheless, this does not mean that fish, plants, amoeba, etc. do not participate within the redemption of the cosmos. The images in Revelation of a “new Heaven and new earth” seem to indicate that all of creation, not merely human persons, will partake of the restoration and reconciliation of the creation to God.

Where do you guys get your authoritative statements.

What I have proposed comes from my reflections upon Scripture and the nature of God that I find revealed therein.

For example, I would point to Augustine’s thoughts that I discussed here. Obviously, from Augustine’s point of view, the affirmation of God’s creative power and act, not the mechanism of the same, is what is of vital importance. Speculations about the mechanisms, according to Augustine, will shift with every philosophical movement in the course of human history.

Perhaps there have been no ecuminical councils to meet on this one, because it was not needed.

I agree. It was not needed because the ancients did not see a reason to explicitly define the mechanism of that which cannot be categorically established upon phenomenological investigation.

You never had anybody trying to teach evolution and to bride it with Christianity.

Yes, because modern conceptions of evolutionary frameworks were not known at that time.

The evolution theory was formulated to oppose Christianity.

Oh please. I would love to see you substantiate that historically. Initially, most Christians were approving of the beginning conclusions of evolutionary theory and (rightly) did not see it as a threat to religious belief. In the West, it was the Fundamentalism of the early 20th century that radically shifted the mentality concerning the theological implications of the conclusions of evolutionary biology, manufacturing the false dichotomy between the implications of evolutionary theory for discussions of the phenomenological world and speculations concerning the supernatural. Therefore, this claim that you are making is actually the result of a philosophically untenable application of modern scientific principles on the part of Christians and other theists to discussions of the relationship of the supernatural and creation.

Perhaps Genesis 1 would clear things up for you. God created (two words in Hebrew) meaning self-create. Not evolve.

I do not understand how the conclusions of evolutionary biology are opposed to the ex-nihilo creation of God. Evolutionary biology, after all, does not say that life arose from nothingness. Rather, it is merely a framework for describing the changes and mutations which have been observed to occur across billions of years in biological life on Earth. There is nothing that is native to evolutionary theory, then, that precludes the ex nihilo creation by God. Rather, the dichotomy is imported by antagonists of evolutionary theory.

He created it, instantaneously. It is too clear in scripture to believe otherwise under the authority of Scripture.

But what does “instantaneously” mean in the economy of God? As God transcends space/time, durations within the created order are of equal value in eternity. Moreover, even if one is literal in the sense that you interpret Genesis, creation was not “instananeous,” but occurred over several days. I’m not saying that evolutionary biology is encoded into the pages of Scripture, but given that there are durations of time involved, I also do not see that it is categorically prohibited as an interpretation. Not to mention that the ancients who wrote these passages probably did not have this debate in mind whatsoever…

How can I know for certain that anything modern scientists claim is true?

Perhaps it is due to my lack of education, but I have not personally seen any of the purported evidence of evolution with my own two eyes. Therefore, cannot know if one iota of what they profess is true.

Quite often, when something new is discovered (i.e. the latest info from the Hinode’s Solar Optical Telescope) , scientists have to go back and rewrite their theories because what they thought they knew turned out to be wrong.

To me, basing ones views of Creation off of anything these people claim is to place oneself on a foundation of shifting sand.

It’s plain to me that what is now called “science” is really more like wild eyed science fiction. Even “Lucy” whom we’ve written about above, was simply a partial skeleton found in the dirt in Ethiopia, there was no book found beside it recording it’s ancestory, mating habits, or line of decendants. In reality, it proves nothing, except that, at one time the critter Existed and then Dissolved.

In his book, “Now That’s a Good Question,” Dr. R.C. Sproul states: “The view of evolution -the one I hear discussed publically so often in the secular world- is unmitigated nonsense and will be totally rejected by the secular scientific community within the next generation.”

Sproul continues, “My objections to it are not so much theological as they are rational and logical. I men, the doctrine of macroevolution is one of the most unsubstantiated myths that I’ve ever seen perpetuated in an academic environment.”

I second Dr. Sproul’s assessment and will hedge my bets on the plain reading of Genesis 1-3.

Exist…humor me by answering this question simply, with as little philisophical mess as possible. Do you believe in absolute truth or do you believe that all truth claims are of equal value?

Forgive me for what will most likely be understood as another philosophical mess, but I don’t really see the two “options” as being meaningfully different. After all, in order to determine that “all truth claims are of equal value” would seem to require that one have in mind some absolute criterion by which to adjudicate the equality of their approximation of truth.

That being said, I simply do not think that the category of “absolute truth”, as conceived by Western, Enlightenment thinking, is a very helpful paradigm for thinking about God. In my understanding, the assertion of propositions as “absolute truth”–when the asserters are themselves subjectively mired in the vagrancies of human existence within space/time–is far too often used to bolster ultimately unprovable biases.

While I say this, I would not say that one assertion is equivalent with all others. Obviously, from the loyalties which I have to the Christian faith, the assertions of historic Christian belief is compelling to me, even though it is not to others outside the Church (and not even to some within it…). I think, however, that this compulsion to belief should be rooted in a true faith, not in propositional statements about absolute truth, a truth that is ultimately unfathomable by human epistemology.

How can I know for certain that anything modern scientists claim is true?

Ultimately, you cannot, nor do I suggest that you should look to science for truth. Such a perspective has led to the mess against which I have written so pointedly, for although many creationists reveal a particular disdain for the conclusions of scientific methodology, they also do not blink an eye at utilizing its categories to establish (or at least try to) their own positions. All I am advocating is that the false and fabricated bifurcation that has been erected between current scientific methodologies and religious belief should be removed.

Perhaps it is due to my lack of education, but I have not personally seen any of the purported evidence of evolution with my own two eyes. Therefore, cannot know if one iota of what they profess is true.

As I mentioned earlier, the evidence for evolution is a matter of deduction. The evolutionary theories are not truth claims, but rather frameworks through which to understand the large and disparate data that exists.

Quite often, when something new is discovered (i.e. the latest info from the Hinode’s Solar Optical Telescope) , scientists have to go back and rewrite their theories because what they thought they knew turned out to be wrong.

Yes, and so it should be. As I noted earlier, this is why evolutionary theory is not a “guess” about how things happened, but rather an interpretive lens through which to organize and categorize the information. As knowledge increases and the data is more thoroughly understood, so will the theoretical frameworks change.

To me, basing ones views of Creation off of anything these people claim is to place oneself on a foundation of shifting sand.

This is only true if one is seeking unchanging, irrefutable truth and proof. Science cannot provide this, nor does it claim to. Interestingly, though, creationism cannot provide this too, for it fails upon the same criterion by which you would discount the contributions of evolutionary theory to understanding the biological development of life on earth.

It’s plain to me that what is now called “science” is really more like wild eyed science fiction. Even “Lucy” whom we’ve written about above, was simply a partial skeleton found in the dirt in Ethiopia, there was no book found beside it recording it’s ancestory, mating habits, or line of decendants. In reality, it proves nothing, except that, at one time the critter Existed and then Dissolved.

Well, existed and dissolved a long time ago…As to science being “wild-eyed science fiction,” your probably right. However, most science fiction of the past is the reality of toady. The microwave would have probably been anathematized two centuries ago.

In his book, “Now That’s a Good Question,” Dr. R.C. Sproul states: “The view of evolution -the one I hear discussed publically so often in the secular world- is unmitigated nonsense and will be totally rejected by the secular scientific community within the next generation.”

That may be so. However, this will bring you no closer to substantiating–on the basis of scientific methodology–a mechanistic, phenomenologically verifiable creationism.

Sproul continues, “My objections to it are not so much theological as they are rational and logical. I men, the doctrine of macroevolution is one of the most unsubstantiated myths that I’ve ever seen perpetuated in an academic environment.”

His objections ARE clearly theological, as a thorough investigation of the arguments presented on all sides would at least temper his unbelievably juvenile rhetoric.

As the statement that redemption is not just for humanity. But my question is, if scripture is clear that we are to repent and believe to be saved, then would that not leave out all other forms of life? I have not yet heard the conversion story of a fish. Where do you guys get your authoritative statements. You seem to more of the postmodern mindset, all philosophies are equally true, so where do you get the authority to make the bold statements that you do?

Romans 8:18-20 seems to indicate that creation as a whole will be brought into freedom and release from its bondage to decay. That certainly sounds quite a bit like redemption. Exist has already mentioned the idea that the scriptures talk about a new heaven and a new earth. It would appear that the scriptures indicate that God’s concern is not only for redeeming humanity, but for bringing all that God has made into union with God.

As to the conversion of a fish, I would probably agree that a fish doesn’t require conversion, at least not in the same way as a human being who can and does relate to God differently.

However, I would also think that since the Logos is in and sustains all things, it is possible that the Logos is incarnated towards creation differently according to its relation to the Logos. For instance, there is the potential that there are other lifeforms in the universe that relate to God in similar ways to humanity. If that were the case, the Logos could incarnate towards them differently than to humanity. That is, they could have their own version of Jesus. Of course, other lifeforms may not have need of the same kind of redemption that humanity does. However, within christian theology, especially the thought of athanasius and other eastern fathers, there is this idea that even if the fall had never occurred, the Logos would have still had to incarnate to bring humanity into full union with God- that is, humanity wasn’t created in some kind of static spiritual perfection from which they fell, but was rather created in a sort of spiritual infancy from which they were meant to grow into the likeness of God, through the Logos.

All that to say that redemption can occur on many levels, and isn’t just a freedom from the effects of sin. Rather than a freeing from sin (the negative sense) redemption is perhaps understood in the positive sense as re-union with God. That is, whereas the effect of sin is a disconnect from the sustaining life of union with the divine, the effect of re-union with the divine would seem to be complete fullness of life.

I’m certainly not intending to supply authoritative statements, but rather thoughts based out studying the scriptures, the church fathers, etc. I would not claim to know enough to make myself an authority for you.

If I cannot read Genesis and believe the account of Creation found there is what actually occured, how then can I believe anything else in the book is what actually occured?

The first thing that comes to mind is that there is a wide variety of literature in the Scriptures. To constrain every seemingly historical account to the rigors of modernistic assumptions about historicity is, frankly, dangerous. If one reads the wider collection of Ancient Near Eastern literature, it becomes clear that mythos was a extremely important element of cultural/social/religious development. But the rub is that the place of mythos had a vital and understood role within these cultures–therefore, often the mythos had more meaning to the people encountering it than did that which we would classify as “historical.” Of course, this perfectly illustrates the primal difficulty of interpretation. The interpreter cannot help but bring her assumptions about reality to bear upon the text. However, when the contexts of the interpreter and writer are separated by eons, the task becomes extremely difficult and, IMO, severely limits the claims of absolutism to which one can press the text (and subsequent interpretation).

Therefore, I personally do not see the problem with allowing a portion of the texts to be mythological. After all, if this was the writer’s intention, and not some curiously modern account of the mechanism and processes of creation that conforms to modernistic conceptions of historicity…well, we’ve done the text no violence, and only perpetrate violence upon it when we attempt to make it say what our Western conceptions of reality want it to say.

Could it be that the entire book is just one big fairy tale as my father taught me??

If you’re looking for absolute truth in Scripture that is verifiable upon the basis of modern conceptions of historicity, textual accuracy, etc., I think you will search in vain. However, the Scriptures have been central to the historic Church not because of their conformity to these criterion, but rather because they contain within their pages the unique witness of the people of God to the miraculous history of God’s salvation in creation.

His rejection of the existence God and the Bible was based upon the “problem of evil” and his objections to the Biblical account of Creation and the origin of life on the Earth.

The first five books of the Bible, the pentateuch, are historical documents. The record a historical creation where God spoke things into existence. It records a historical and literal fall when Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden tree. While there are different genres of literature, it is a vain attempt to call the pentateuch “mythological” What parts are mythological. Is “Adam” mythological? If so, then Jesus Christ is mythological because of the connection in Romans of Adam and Christ. I don’t know why you are so opposed to accepting the literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1. Maybe you can share a bit ofyour background with me to help me understand where you are coming from. Maybe there is something about you altogether than I am missing here. But nonetheless, no matter what are backgrounds are, the scriptures were written without any regard as to our backgrounds, philosophies, etc. The men who penned the words of Holy Writ under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended a specific meaning in a specific context to a specific people. Yes, we are far removed from their context, which does make interpretation seemingly difficult. However, we do have tools to study their historical context, literature genre, grammatical structure, to understand what is being said and why it is being said.

The reason I am so narrow minded is because I see stuff so clear in scripture. There are things that I am not dogmatic on, because there are things that are difficult to build a concise theology on, for example all the details of eschatology. I dogmatically affirm Jesus is returning again bodily, but other than that…theres alot of possibilities.

But take John 14:6 or Acts 4:12….it is so clear in scripture that only through Christ can a man be saved. I claim that as absolute truth because I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and those are clear explicit statements that cannot be interpreted any other way.

I hope that one day we can reach an understanding. Personally, I am not out to win an argument. I just want to understand where you are coming from. I haven’t studied alot of philosophy. I don’t use those philisophical words like you do. So I would greatly appreciate it if you would speak to me with normal every day language.

The first five books of the Bible, the pentateuch, are historical documents.

That may very well be. However, my question is not whether the events are “historical,” but what “history” meant to its authors. You and I, trained in Western understandings of “history,” have very specific ideas about history and the criteria by which one might determine that something is “historical.” This criteria further informs our understanding about the value of history to such an extent that the common assumption is that only that which can be determined to attain “historicity” by modern epistemological standards equates to meaningfulness. The effects of this are obvious, particularly within historical criticism. Mythology has taken on a very pejorative meaning. What I see as particularly troubling is that many Christian lines of thinking have completely capitulated to this defintion of “historicity.” They agree completely with modern historical/textual criticism’s criterion of historical meaning, and only diverge from the same in that they assert contrary conclusions.

So we come back to my beginning question. How do we know that the ancients shared similar presuppositions about the nature and meaning of “history?” If they did, then our interpretations and evaluations of their writings will be approximately accurate. If, however, they did not share these same presuppositions, we then do incredible violence to the text by making it conform to our biases concerning the nature and meaning of history. As I mentioned earlier, what if the writers were using mythos deliberately to communicate certain theological/religious/social meanings? Why would that not be acceptable? If we deny the possibility of this on the basis of nothing more than our particular assumptions about historicity, we have subsequently eroded any possible approximation of meaning in the act of interpretation.

They record a historical creation where God spoke things into existence. It records a historical and literal fall when Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden tree. While there are different genres of literature, it is a vain attempt to call the pentateuch “mythological”

I hardly see how the recognition of mythos in the pentateuch is any more of a vain activity than attempting to constrain the meaning of the ancient texts to modern presuppositions about the nature and meaning of the “historical.” The primal question, then, is what one means by “historical.” Are you not importing philosophical biases to the text to make this determination? Are you not relying upon the criterion of the very methodologies against which you make your assertions?

What parts are mythological. Is “Adam” mythological?

I would see that as a possibility, yes. Adam, meaning “human,” was used (IMO) by the writers of the Pentateuch as a type of humanity, a particularizing of the general.

If so, then Jesus Christ is mythological because of the connection in Romans of Adam and Christ.

I do not see why this would be a necessary conclusion. To make such a conclusion, one would have to assume that Genesis and Romans were written under the umbrella of identical philosophical presuppositions and for the exact same purposes. I would suggest that the literary and contextual differences of each text would seem to suggest otherwise. Besides, Paul uses both Adam and Christ in very cosmis, transhistorical ways. I do not see that he is giving a thesis on the historical verifiability and actuality of Adam. Rather, in keeping with my previous comments about Adam, Paul uses each as juxtaposed types for the story of the history of salvation, showing how the reconciliation of God has been made manifest in a humanity that has rebelled against God.

I don’t know why you are so opposed to accepting the literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1.

I’m actually not opposed to “literal” interepretation of Genesis, only uncritical assumptions that the “literal” interpretation of Genesis conforms exactly with Western presuppositions concerning historicity. In this way, a literal interpretation of Gensis could be just as accurately subsumed under the suggestions that I have made concerning mythos. That is, a “literal” interpretation is that which conforms to the author’s intentions, not to the readers’.

Maybe you can share a bit ofyour background with me to help me understand where you are coming from. Maybe there is something about you altogether than I am missing here.

My background is very similar to yours, philosophically. I would have probably anathematized myself 10 years ago. However, through my studies of philosophy, historical theology, and the Scriptures, I have come to realize the powerful hold which presuppositions have on a person, from their worldview to their interpretation of Scripture. While I do not suggest that I am now “free” of these, I feel that I am more capable of self-critique than I was previously.

But nonetheless, no matter what are backgrounds are, the scriptures were written without any regard as to our backgrounds, philosophies, etc.

I completely agree. This is precisely why I suggest that we should not allow our assumptions about “historicity” unduly constrain the interpretation of the Scriptures. Our assumptions are not those of the writers of Scripture, as much as we wish they were. Therefore, the task of the interpreter is to very self-critically examine how her interpretation might be influenced by these personally-held presuppositions. Obviously, you understand that I do not think that an interpretation can ever be free of this; nonetheless, there is no reason that one should not be completely forthright about this, allowing it to temper one’s assertions about particular interpretations.

The men who penned the words of Holy Writ under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended a specific meaning in a specific context to a specific people. Yes, we are far removed from their context, which does make interpretation seemingly difficult. However, we do have tools to study their historical context, literature genre, grammatical structure, to understand what is being said and why it is being said.

I don’t deny that approximations of meaning can be garnered. However, I find it interesting that–especially in regards to the creationism debate–the “specific meaning” that is taken from the text nicely corresponds to the Western assumptions concerning historicity and scientific instrumentality which the interpreters assert. Perhaps the writers of Scripture were ancient Westerners, agreeing entirely that the value of history resides only in that which can be substantively proven through scientific methodology. On the other hand, maybe they had completely different valuations of the historical. The latter is my operative assumption.

The reason I am so narrow minded is because I see stuff so clear in scripture.

I don’t doubt that you do. Interpretations have a way of being self-justifying to one’s philosophical presuppositions. Believe me, I do it all the time.

There are things that I am not dogmatic on, because there are things that are difficult to build a concise theology on, for example all the details of eschatology. I dogmatically affirm Jesus is returning again bodily, but other than that…theres alot of possibilities.

But take John 14:6 or Acts 4:12….it is so clear in scripture that only through Christ can a man be saved. I claim that as absolute truth because I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and those are clear explicit statements that cannot be interpreted any other way.

Yet they can. I would agree completely that it is only through Christ that all are saved. However, I would disagree–based primarily upon the example of Abraham–that this does not necessarily equate to epistemological understanding concerning Christ. So while I agree that there is an exclusivity to Christ as the only “way” of salvation, I would certainly agree as to the mechanism (horrible word choice here) of it.

Exist, How then would you answer an Atheist, such as my late father, who
believed Christianity was a hoax and for weak-minded people?Why should
a non-believer believe anything in the BIble??

If an athiest wishes to demand some sort of “proof” for faith, I will gladly acknowledge that I can provide none. I don’t have objective, demonstratable proof for my faith, and to be quite honest I would be quite disturbed if I felt that I did. Athiests who want “proof” are not really interested in that at all. Rather, they realize that if they can get “proof” from those they criticize, well, they have won the argument for they have convinced the other to play by their philosophical rules.

As to why a non-believer should believe anything in the bible, I’m wouldn’t try to convince them that they should on the basis of some contrived set of so-called objective criterion. Faith is a crisis of being, for it propels us beyond that which is within the realm of observation, measurement and manipulation, compelling us to absolute trust in God, not in our abilities to demonstrate a manufactured need to validate the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not meaingful to Christian faith because they can be proven to be “accurate” or repositories of “absolute truth.” Rather, they are invaluable because they contain the profession of the saints to the self-revelation of God in the person of Christ in the midst of God’s people. In this sense, they are meaningless to the non-believer, so I see no need to provide artificial reasons to try to make them believe it or, on the flip-side, to defend them against their ignorance of the proper place of Scriptures in the life of the Church.

Ironically, I would propose that if more Christians stopped “defending” the Scriptures, more unbelievers would be interested in them, for it would remove the motivations of many to try to undermine the methodological assumptions of the Scriptures ardent “defenders” so-called.

Ironically, I would propose that if more Christians stopped “defending” the Scriptures, more unbelievers would be interested in them, for it would remove the motivations of many to try to undermine the methodological assumptions of the Scriptures ardent “defenders” so-called.

This idea is interesting in the grand scheme. I think the Christian story, or evangel is so powerful that if we did indeed focus on the message and essentials of faith then we could perhaps indeed stop “playing by their rules” and propose our own ontology and epistemology. This is not to say that we are intellectual anabaptists in seclusion, but rather that it is our message of Christ died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again that should be shaping the discussion of the world as opposed to post enlightenment and now post modernism shaping our understanding of Christ.

We are of course a people who exist within a context and culture so that necessarily would affect our understanding, however the Christian message in our present context seems to me to be too many times reactive and defensive. Jesus’ words to Peter come to mind, “and the gates of hades will not prevail”. Are we assailing the ‘cosmos’ with the gospel or not? I wonder what infighting over 7 day creation looks like to those on the outside, and I’m not even talking about the intellectual elite. What about the person in prison, or hungry or thirsty? We can say, “Geez God, I know that person died of starvation, but we convinced people that you made the world in 7 days! Glory!” What is at the heart of what it means to be Christian?

If the gospel is indeed the best news in human history, and if the church embodied that message and lived it out, would there be any argument about “proving faith?” I think the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, correct? If the church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, transformed the world, who would argue about the Bible’s authority?

All right, that’s way off topic. Sorry. Your last comment was intriguing though, and I haven’t been by for awhile.

“Could it be that the entire book is just one big fairy tale as my father taught me?? ”

That’s far more likely, in the scheme of things, than the assertion that every word of it is literal history.

In fact, there is 0 chance that every word of it is literal history. What you fail to realize is that your style of theology is in its death-throes, and is laughable to the majority of human beings. You might as well be arguing, as your theological predecessors did, that it is scientific hogwash that the sun rotates around the earth.

Scientists “update” their theories and ideas based on new evidence. That’s the scientific process. You assert that there is little to no evidence for evolution — that is completely false. There is more evidence for evolution than just about any other scientific “theory” in existence. You wouldn’t know that, however, if all your information on evolution comes from a pulpit or from answersingenesis.com. Furthermore, there is virtually no competing evidence to suggest evolution is wrong. Every new discovery since Darwin has supported his thesis, not destroyed it.

What about the evidence they find that destroys their theory that they fail to mention?

That’s the scientific process. You assert that there is little to no evidence for evolution — that is completely false.

Ok, well you can gather bits and pieces of anything you want and make proof of anything. However, neither evolution or creation can either be proven by a scientific method. Even as a creationist I would admit that. I happen to see the evidence in favor of creationism. Either way…the scientific method is not perfect and no matter what they “discover” it won’t be completely accurate, and scientists are not as objective as you would like them to be. Scientist simply want to prove their point as well.

There is more evidence for evolution than just about any other scientific “theory” in existence.

Really…perhaps you can inform me. My several years of public school education failed in this attempt.

You wouldn’t know that, however, if all your information on evolution comes from a pulpit or from answersingenesis.com.

No, actually Rhett and myself both read alot and study alot more than just what we hear from the pulpit or Answers in Genesis…Clever assertion though! Good try!

Furthermore, there is virtually no competing evidence to suggest evolution is wrong.

Every new discovery since Darwin has supported his thesis, not destroyed it.
umm….I am afraid you are ignorant on this one..Not every thing…in fact there is a great deal of evidence that has destroyed his theory. Perhaps you need to study both sides of the issue before making such a ridiculous statement.

“What about the evidence they find that destroys their theory that they fail to mention?”

Unless you suppose that the word “scientist” is a codename for “Member of the Vast Conspiracy to Destroy the Pretty Psuedo-Reality World that Evangelicals Have Created For Themselves,” then this comment is nonsense. Science is not in the business of answering theological and eschatalogical questions. Science is in the business of exploring the world and making logical hypotheses on the evidence found there. When enough evidence is discovered to support those hypotheses, the hypotheses become scientific theory, and then scienitific law. Despite this, the scientific process never claims to capture “Ultimate Truth.” Anyone who claims to have that is either lying, deluded, or both.

It may make denying scientific evidence easier for the Evangelical, but assuming that science, as an academic discipline, has any underhanded plan to destroy religious faith, is absurd, unfounded, and outrageous.

You should read the book “The Language of God,” by lifelong evangelical Christian Francis Collins. Despite his religious beliefs, he is an evolutionist. He was one of the primary geneticists on the Human Genome Project. He’s a fantastic example of how evolution and evangelicism can co-exist.

“I happen to see the evidence in favor of creationism.”

And what evidence would that be?

“Either way…the scientific method is not perfect and no matter what they “discover” it won’t be completely accurate, and scientists are not as objective as you would like them to be. Scientist simply want to prove their point as well.”

Right, sort of like when they came up with that wacky “theory” of gravity, and that crazy “theory” of a heliocentric solar system, and those outrageous, conspiracy-darkened ideas about photosynthesis. Lies, damn lies, and conspiracies! Don’t believe any of them! Flat earth! FLAT EARTH!!

“Really…perhaps you can inform me. My several years of public school education failed in this attempt. ”

Well, that ain’t all it failed in.

I’m not going into an exposition on the evidence for evolutionary science here. It’s out there if you have the intellectual curiosity and honesty to seek it. If you don’t have those things, then me going into a lengthy diatribe about it isn’t going to change your mind. Read Francis Collins. He’s someone you can identify with, religiously, and he presents the evidence for evolution lucidly and clearly.

“No, actually Rhett and myself both read alot and study alot more than just what we hear from the pulpit or Answers in Genesis…Clever assertion though! Good try! ”

Thanks! Even if it’s not true in your particular cases, it’s definitely true for most of your ilk.

“In fact there is a great deal of evidence that has destroyed his theory. Perhaps you need to study both sides of the issue before making such a ridiculous statement.”

Your first mistake is in assuming there are “two sides” to this so-called “issue.” There is no issue and there aren’t two sides…at least not two sides deserving of equal consideration. Evolution is one of the studied, and proven, scientific laws in existence. It IS true, whether some people acknowledge it or not.

Suggesting that I study “both sides of the issue” would be like suggesting I study both sides of the issue about whether or not the grass is green. The one side has such a preponderance of evidence, that there is no compulsion whatsoever to give even a shred of respect to the opposing sides. For what it’s worth, I have stomached my way through arguments on creation and intelligent design on many occassions. But they are so absurd, psuedo-scientific, and laced with such dripping, pig-ignorant drivel, that I can barely get through them without feeling like I need a bath.

Suggesting that I study “both sides of the issue” would be like suggesting I study both sides of the issue about whether or not the grass is green. The one side has such a preponderance of evidence, that there is no compulsion whatsoever to give even a shred of respect to the opposing sides

To argue this is to suggest that there is an inherent greenness that is natural to grass. But the grass isnt really green, We see the green as the sun reflects upon the grass, to our eyes, and then we perceive the grass is green. But you cannot say that the grass is inherently green, because even the concept of green is a man made concept…

I have often wondered if the color “green” which my mind’s eye sees is actually the same color “green” everyone else sees?

Perhaps the color Josh sees as green in his mind’s eye is actually what my mind sees as blue?

What if the color Exist-Dissolve sees in his mind as orange is actually what my mind’s eye sees as red or even blue?

How can we ever conclusively answer these questions unless we actually go inside a person’s mind and see what they see and make a comparison?? I would posit that we cannot.

Regardless of the scientic objections Josh has raised above, we cannot possiby know for a fact that grass is really green (to every person that is in relation to what imy mind’s eye sees as green), therefore to seek to use the color of grass to prove a point about anything is actually farcical.

While everyone may say that the grass is green….you are correct Rhett…how can we truly know what each other person sees as green. At this point…saying grass is green cannot be an absolute statement for it would indeed have to be relative to each individual. I cannot ever know exactly how you see the grass.

Of course you’re going to debate my analogy, instead of directing your comments to the substance of my post.

Instead of the greenness of grass, why not look at all sides of the issue on whether or not cars are powered by gasoline?

Either way, that’s about how it sounds to tell someone who understands evolution to “look at all sides” and thereby give consideration to ancient Middle Eastern creation myths. I might as well consider that it might have been Ra or Zeus who created the world, too.

Of course you’re going to debate my analogy, instead of directing your comments to the substance of my post.

Instead of the greenness of grass, why not look at all sides of the issue on whether or not cars are powered by gasoline?

Either way, that’s about how it sounds to tell someone who understands evolution to “look at all sides” and thereby give consideration to ancient Middle Eastern creation myths. I might as well consider that it might have been Ra or Zeus who created the world, too.

Of course you’re going to debate my analogy, instead of directing your comments to the substance of my post.

Instead of the greenness of grass, why not look at all sides of the issue on whether or not cars are powered by gasoline?

Either way, that’s about how it sounds to tell someone who understands evolution to “look at all sides” and thereby give consideration to ancient Middle Eastern creation myths. I might as well consider that it might have been Ra or Zeus who created the world, too.

Of course you’re going to debate my analogy, instead of directing your comments to the substance of my post.

Instead of the greenness of grass, why not look at all sides of the issue on whether or not cars are powered by gasoline?

Either way, that’s about how it sounds to tell someone who understands evolution to “look at all sides” and thereby give consideration to ancient Middle Eastern creation myths. I might as well consider that it might have been Ra or Zeus who created the world, too.

Of course you’re going to debate my analogy, instead of directing your comments to the substance of my post.

Instead of the greenness of grass, why not look at all sides of the issue on whether or not cars are powered by gasoline?

Either way, that’s about how it sounds to tell someone who understands evolution to “look at all sides” and thereby give consideration to ancient Middle Eastern creation myths. I might as well consider that it might have been Ra or Zeus who created the world, too.

Well…that all depends on how you define cars and how you define gasoline. Secondly, I have not seen every single car in the entire world, so I cannot make such a general assumption as you have by saying all cars are powered by gasoline. In fact, currently you are following inductive reasoning that is not very good.

My car is powered by gasoline.
My neighboors car is powered by gasoline.
My bosses car is powered by gasoline.
Conclusion: All cars are powered by gasoline.

The problem with this is that your conclusion is simply inferred based on your own observations and cannot be substantiated. There could be a car that you are unaware of that is not powered by gasoline, perhaps it runs off another substance, or is electric or solar powered.

No trackbacks yet.

My church just concluded a sermon series on the subject of miracles. On the whole, it was an interesting series and some good points were made. However, there was one particular part of the series that especially intrigued me, that being the definition of "miracle." To explain the concept, the speaker appealed to a Grahamian…

In my previous post, I briefly discussed some problems which I believe to be inherent to popular conceptions of the miraculous. As outlined, this understanding is based upon the correlation of the miraculous to human ignorance, e.g., that which is miraculous is that which is beyond the [current] knowledge of human persons. The crux of…

In my previous post, I briefly discussed reasons why Christian theology must necessarily affirm the ontological non-existence of sin. I concluded that if sin is assigned a substantival nature; and if God is to be spoken of as source and sustainer of all that has existence; then one must unavoidably conclude that God has not…

In several of my posts, I have argued that human language is incapable of propositionally communicating truth about the divine nature of the Godhead. The qualification of propositionally is important, I think, because on the one hand it acknowledges the severe break that exists between the human and divine in terms of ontology (and the…

Those who affirm the canons of Calvinistic philosophy often laud the logical coherence of its systematic formulation. In this post, I would like to turn the tables on this methodological assumption, showing how Calvinistic philosophy, while perhaps logical, leads to a horribly perverse image of the divine nature and will of God. I shall do…

Think about the word "sin." What do you think of? A stain? Some black, ethereal substance? A "negative" field of energy? Throughout history, humans have struggled with defining this difficult concept to align with and elucidate religious and social notions of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and ethics. In Christian theology, sin occupies…

Over the last several monthsand especially within the last few daysI have been involved in numerous conversations about the nature and function of human language in describing God. What follows is not meant to be a fully-developed essay, but is rather intended to be somewhat of a summary of the lines of thinking I have…

Continuing in my research concerning the parallels between Hebrew and other ancient Near Eastern writing, I would like to share some additional interesting correlations in some of the texts. In the following, I have quoted, at length, the various texts under considerations. At the end of each section is a concluding discussion about similarities. I…